L Cooper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > This occurs because of
> > the nature of Ancient Language to mirror
> reality
> > itself. It can't really be "translated" at all
> > because modern language can not be forced to
> obey
> > natural law.
>
> Any translation from one language to another will
> have its flaws due to differences in world view
> and such. This, however, does not mean that
> translations lack levels of validity and
> usefulness, nor that by looking at a number of
> translations one can't get even closer to the
> intent of the original. Your view strikes me as
> being similar to that of Calvin, of "Calvin and
> Hobbes", where no one else understands "natural
> law" in the way that he does, except, of course,
> for perhaps his stuffed tiger. (And even he often
> questions Calvin's reasoning.)
>
>
> > I read all the modern sources though frankly I
> > haven't bought Allen's book yet because I can't
> > cross reference it.
>
> All the modern sources? Really?? Hmmmm. Allen
> provides 40 pages (pp. 375ff) of concordance
> (cross references). Granted that he doesn't give
> the relevant page numbers (which I wish he had),
> the cross referencing is indeed there - and not
> that difficult to use. (I've simply pencilled in
> the page numbers next to each of his correlations
> over time as I've looked them up).
>
>
> > Even where I can it just
> > doesn't seem to agree with any earlier
> > translators. If I'm right that the language
> can't
> > be translated then any individual "translator"
> is
> > irrelevant anyway.
>
> More "Calvinism" here, though in spades. On
> occasion you do seem to be able to raise some
> interesting questions, but then you invariably go
> off into this sort of nonsense. It's a shame.

A good metaphor in the use of Calvin. Very apt.